Apparatus 2.0: The Unreliable Library is an exhibition resulting from a collaboration between artists and organizers from Prague and New York City. Taking place in the reconstructed FCCA library, Apparatus 2.0 reflects on how we gather research and build knowledge about culture, and on the library as a space for contemplation and discovery. This exhibition expands on its predecessor, Apparatus for a Utopian Image (2016) at EFA Project Space in New York, initiated by artists Pavla Sceranková and Dušan Zahoranský to encourage a dialogue between communities of artists from Prague and New York City. Apparatus 2.0 deepens the engagement through long-distance collaborations between the same artists, bringing the New York group to meet their Prague counterparts to complete the exhibition together. Throughout this exchange, the artists and organizers have considered their experiences – in different cities, under their respective cultural conditions – to see how these aspects shape their understanding of images.

Michelle Levy: Do you think this is a utopian project?

Meghana Karnik: You know, I believe Apparatus for a Utopian Image was working towards a utopia. With 2.0, I think we're already there. As Pavla said the other day, it's "even more utopian!".

Michelle: What does that mean: "more utopian”?

Meghana: Utopia: a situation in which you and the person next to you have no common language, no shared points of reference, yet somehow, the time you spend together is functional, collaborative, even generative. Apparatus 1.0 was like a bricolage, a lot of different elements side by side but not talking to each other. Now, we’re witnessing a real communion.

Michelle: I like this definition, but I am not sure if it describes Utopia, or the joys of travel? I see Utopia as a moment of shared understanding, of equality and fairness. There is a shared common language in this particular collaboration - English. Our native language. We are guests in this country, and our hosts speak to us in our language. This does not seem fair? Is this an imbalance of power?

Meghana: Hmm, I see what you're thinking. It's a privilege that we could get away with being here without speaking the language of our hosts. We're relying on their generosity. Imagine waking up in Prague, the day of our opening, and no one speaks English. Maybe the whole operation would fall apart. Maybe it's just an illusion that we are working together, when the reality is that we are discrete and siloed. But, wait a second, isn't that kind of utopic? To have achieved this state where we are allowed to be different, and our difference remains intact?

Michelle: Absolutely, Tereza. I think you hit the nail on the head. The whole point of this, utopia or no, is about cooperation. Did the organizers of this project ever expect to reach the moment of pure understanding? We know it is not possible, and yet we continue to try. These artists are embracing the imperfect practice / pathway of communication with each other, they have committed themselves to this, and it is beautiful.

Meghana: Tereza, you once said that artists can be these self-aware, self-contained units. But here, we have a chorus. The layers and boundaries of identity in this super-collaboration are imprecise, unintelligible. When I speak of language, I’m really thinking of it as a metaphor for unreliability, for faulty systems and incomplete promises. There is no perfect symmetry. There are no equivalencies. And the double bind here is that once a sensible or coded apparatus is created, these systems are used to organize us. Even between the most fluent people, is any form of expression ever 100% accurate?